I didn’t suggest F-Droid for inclusion though. I merely used its applicable terminology. Still, with Google Play, you trust Google to ensure that the apk is from the actual source, and with F-Droid, that’s delegated to F-Droid. I don’t see that as being less secure.

I don’t think giving into Google seizing more power is the way. People doing that is what enables the corporation to continue and have more control over their lives, including their privacy.

Why is being on the Google Play store a feature worth highlighting? To use an F-Droid expression, that would be an anti-feature.

PrivacyGuides being among those bros.

He left it performatively. Since then, he’s secretly visited Russia, one time just around its unblocking in Russia, while pretending to be a fugitive.

Edit: Here’s an article on that.

Still highly depended on Google and helping it maintain its market monopoly.

Going by your logic though, what would stop a Five Eyes country like the UK from pressuring the developer of SimpleX into creating a backdoor? Besides, as discussed, even if it were bulletproof, it’s improbable that the victim would have no other apps on their device, one of which could be exploited by the likes of NSO Group. The creators of Android and iOS are also obviously US-based, so your point would have to apply to them as well. From there, if someone remotely gains full access to the device, it won’t matter if you use Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp, SimpleX, or that new Russian thing. However, having e2ee is still better than nothing in that it protects from other attack vectors, like the ISP analyzing the traffic and reporting to the government.

Likewise, you can pretend to be sure it’s a backdoor without any proof and then also believe there’s more that’s not been exposed. Signal is also US-based, by the way. What software do you trust not to have vulnerabilities that could be abused by the likes of NSO Group and why?

A vulnerability allowing to exploit an app is not the same thing as a backdoor. Moreover, being able to gain full access to someone’s device does not prove that an app’s end-to-end encryption is faulty. The same kind of exploit most likely could be used to read messages from Signal and definitely other apps.

Has there been any evidence of that? Intercepting the traffic or disassembling the app would show some signs if true.

WhatsApp uses the Signal protocol for end-to-end encryption, so Meta only collects the metadata. Still enough to convict, but better than anything from Putin.

How’s LibreWolf or Mullvad against Brave? Firefox doesn’t have the best defaults.

Why would it need to blur it? If you were passing by, I assume you’d see it, so you might as well take a pic and use it for your own corporate needs. That’s the logic we’re talking about here, though it’s not my logic.

Why do people sue Google and win for it taking pictures of their houses from the streets? It’s all public access, right?

As much as Steam is free to host what it likes, Visa and the others are free not to work with Steam. You could argue the options available to Steam would be significantly limited by that, but the same argument is being used against Steam now in the Wolfire lawsuit. The argument is that Steam violates antitrust law via illegal tying and other means, making it hard for a user who doesn’t agree with their content policies to switch to a different platform, like Epic, which has always prohibited porn games.

Well, some people do want that.

There should be a separate platform for that, similar to how you wouldn’t go on YouTube expecting to see videos from PornHub.

What’s your fear in relation to using older recovery?

No, it’s not a way to keep anything in check. It’s a way to not pay license fees to Microsoft.

Square Enix, Larian Studios, and Kinetic Games as well, according to the same article.

Kim Kardashian’s face care routine.